Introduction:
- Judicial activism and judicial overreach are terms that often highlight the dynamic role of the judiciary in shaping social policies and intervening in governmental actions beyond traditional interpretations of the law.
Body:
Judicial Activism:
- Definition: Judicial activism refers to a judicial approach where courts actively interpret laws and precedents to implement progressive social policies.
- Examples in India:
- The Supreme Court directing the government to formulate policies for drought management.
- Directing the establishment of a panel to address bad loans in the banking sector.
Judicial Overreach:
- Definition: Judicial overreach occurs when courts exceed their authority by making decisions that are arbitrary and encroach upon the domains of the legislature or executive.
- Example in India:
- Court decisions on liquor licenses near highways, perceived as legislative action.
Reasons for Judicial Activism and Overreach:
- Factors:
- Asymmetry of power among branches of government.
- Influence of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and civil society.
- Increasing awareness of rights among citizens.
- Globalization and media scrutiny.
Concerns of Judicial Overreach:
- Undermining Separation of Powers:
- Excessive use of Article 142 powers may violate the separation of powers doctrine.
- Impact on Legislative and Executive Functions:
- Orders like cancelling coal and spectrum allocations can strain governmental resources and operations.
- Accountability Issues:
- Judiciary’s accountability differs from elected branches, impacting public scrutiny.
- Credibility of the Judiciary:
- Overreaching decisions may undermine public trust in the judiciary’s impartiality.
Conclusion:
- While judicial activism can benefit society, it must align with principles of judicial restraint and constitutional limits to avoid overreach. Upholding the separation of powers and ensuring accountability are crucial for maintaining the judiciary’s credibility.
Legacy Editor Changed status to publish May 2, 2025